No it isn't possible. The springs can't magically take on new characteristics just by being removed and reinstalled.So... what happened?

Possible:1. The new ball joint was shorter (i.e. a problem solver) bringing the lower control arm up a bit.2. He didn't get the springs seated in the upper pocket.3. He didn't have it seated correctly in the lower pocket.4.

Measure the springs he gave you. See if they mic at around .585 to .595. How many coils?

I have witnessed several cars where the front suspension was worked on and put back together with the same or correct parts and the car sits higher. If it's assembled correctly, usually it is due to the rubber bushings in the control arms are preloaded (twisted) and supporting a fair amount of chassis weight. George

Driving the car a few miles over a few bumps should allow the springs to move to their correct location, and unload the A arm bushings, and I always 'jounce' the front end a few times after assembling the suspension, or even jacking up the car, which should also do the same thing.

Hi Gary sorry to keep hi-jacking your thread, but I figure why start anothet thread when we are both talking about the same thing.

Here is a pic of my front coils. I count 8 coils and a bit. 15 & a half inches long. According to the previous owner of the springs and the car they came out of, the springs were GM NOS replacements in 2006. The car travelled less than 1,000 miles with them and mostly sat.

Without having all the various springs Chevrolet used on '69 Camaros, it's impossible for me to know how they adjusted spring rate and loaded height for each car weight. your coil wire is a bit thicker than I measured (assuming we both measured correctly and consistently), thus your spring would be for a heavier weight car. As you see from the 69 Camaro Usage Chart, there were a lot of different springs, for the multitude of engines they offered in the camaro. http://www.camaros.org/images/pages/chassis/69_spring_ID_PA34.jpg

For the Z28, only the following springs were used depending on the additional front end weights for your optional items:

12437 302 Eng. Z28)0-68 YF69 -148 EYOver 148 YH

My car's options totaled between 76 and 107 lbs (from the factory) where the EY spring would be correct, and that was what the original springs were labeled. If your spring coil wire dia is thicker then it may be the YH spring (for the heaviest of addon weight ranges). You can check the weight charts to see what options might have added up to the 148 lbs (Plus) to justify the YH spring? From the charts, it seems it would require a Z28 to have almost ALL the possible options to reach the YH level of spring, certainly it appears the tape player would be required,and that's a rare option.

Without having all the various springs Chevrolet used on '69 Camaros, it's impossible for me to know how they adjusted spring rate and loaded height for each car weight. your coil wire is a bit thicker than I measured (assuming we both measured correctly and consistently), thus your spring would be for a heavier weight car. As you see from the 69 Camaro Usage Chart, there were a lot of different springs, for the multitude of engines they offered in the camaro. http://www.camaros.org/images/pages/chassis/69_spring_ID_PA34.jpg

For the Z28, only the following springs were used depending on the additional front end weights for your optional items:

12437 302 Eng. Z28)0-68 YF69 -148 EYOver 148 YH

My car's options totaled between 76 and 107 lbs (from the factory) where the EY spring would be correct, and that was what the original springs were labeled. If your spring coil wire dia is thicker then it may be the YH spring (for the heaviest of addon weight ranges). You can check the weight charts to see what options might have added up to the 148 lbs (Plus) to justify the YH spring? From the charts, it seems it would require a Z28 to have almost ALL the possible options to reach the YH level of spring, certainly it appears the tape player would be required,and that's a rare option.